Anyone talking about this Robert Clarke freak?

Originally posted by ColonelFor an hour. Ans why wasn't Rice's speech televeised in a public forum?

No, Colonel... 4 LONG HOURS. LOL

You don't even know what's going on in the world.

Leave Clinton alone. He just had sex which is foreign to the repugnant---unless its something deviant and in the closet. That's a repugnant's default answer. Clinton lied. Well, none of our patriotic servcemen died because Clinton lied and lied and lied like Bush. We didn't lose respect worldwide because Clinton lied and lied and lied like Bush. 10,000 Iraqis didn't die under Clinton over a lie like Bush.

It doesn't compare.

Hey, you were the one who said that Republicans tell all the lies. If that was the case then how could Clinton (Democrat) lie?

A lie is a lie, that was the comparison that I was trying to make.

As far as service members dying for a President, that is nothing new. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin by chance?

Originally posted by COOL HAND

As far as service members dying for a President, that is nothing new. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin by chance?

I remember that that was over 40 years ago. I'm talking about recent history.

Originally posted by kramtronix

Originally posted by ColonelFor an hour. Ans why wasn't Rice's speech televeised in a public forum?

No, Colonel... 4 LONG HOURS. LOL

You don't even know what's going on in the world.

Whatever. I see you haven't even bothered ot open your mouth on the Washington Post article I popsted. Too damning for the repugnant I suppose.

Colonel...I have 10 Washington Times posts that makes that look insignificant. Your point? That no one is reading your material? Hell, read some of the ones they post, they 'might' consider reading yours?


seekerof

I remember that that was over 40 years ago. I'm talking about recent history.



Fine, how about Task Force Ranger in Somalia? Is that recent enough for you?

There's always Kosovo.




[Edited on 24/3/04 by COOL HAND]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Colonel...I have 10 Washington Times posts that makes that look insignificant. Your point? That no one is reading your material?

Hell, read some of the ones they post, they 'might' consider reading yours?

seekerof

I would never read anything from that right wing piece of crap fishwrap owned by Sung Yung Moon. That's right. Repugnants don't care if its owned by a cult leader because they're part of a cult, The REPUGNANT CULT.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
I remember that that was over 40 years ago. I'm talking about recent history.

Fine, how about Task Force Ranger in Somalia? Is that recent enough for you?

There's always Kosovo.




[Edited on 24/3/04 by COOL HAND]

People died in those places but there was no LIE to speak of. So what's the point?

Originally posted by ColonelI would never read anything from that right wing piece of crap fishwrap

Yet you want us to honor the Washington Post? LOL

Democrook hypocrisy at it's best!

Colonel, regarless of who posted the story, the fact still remains that the article Seekerof and I are posted are backed by physical evidence. You should try and put your anti-Bush ideology aside for one moment and breath in some truth, er... I mean fresh air.

You should stop worshippihng at the throne of Bush and see all the lies he's been telling you.

People died in those places but there was no LIE to speak of. So what's the point?

Right, so you are now an expert on that and you know all about how the governement was involved with that whole situation?

I suggest you do some research before you reply. It does not take a lot of digging to see that there were lies there as well.

See, Cool Hand, this is why you make me sick. You just spout crap as tho you know # and you don't. I din't even know why I'm talking to you.

Kram: In his own words, here are some of Clarke's revelations:

Clarke repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about attacks from al Qaeda, starting in the first days of Bush's term. "But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on."8 According to another Bush administration security official, Clarke "was the guy pushing hardest, saying again and again that something big was going to happen, including possibly here in the U.S." The official added that Clarke was likely sidelined because he had served in the previous (Clinton) administration.9

In face-to-face meetings, CIA Director George Tenet warned President Bush repeatedly in the months before 9/11 that an attack was coming. According to Clarke, Tenet told the President that "A major al-Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead."10

On September 12, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld pushed to bomb Iraq even though they knew that al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. "Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.'"11

Also on September 12, 2001, President Bush personally pushed Clarke to find evidence that Iraq was behind the attacks. From the New York Times: "'I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything,' Mr. Clarke writes that Mr. Bush told him. 'See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way.' When Mr. Clarke protested that the culprit was Al Qaeda, not Iraq, Mr. Bush testily ordered him, he writes, to 'look into Iraq, Saddam,' and then left the room."12

The Bush Administration knew from the beginning that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, but created the misperception in order to push their policy goals. "[Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush] did know better. They did know better. They did know better. We told them, the CIA told them, the FBI told them. They did know better. And the tragedy here is that Americans went to their death in Iraq thinking that they were avenging September 11th, when Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. I think for a commander-in-chief and a vice president to allow that to happen is unconscionable."13

The war on Iraq has increased the danger of terrorism. In his book, he writes that shifting from al Qaeda to Iraq "launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide."14

Even drudge report had something on bush before they went into Iraq.

He poked his head into the room where Condoleeza rice was and said # this guy we're going after him or something along those lines.


I do know he used the f word.

Originally posted by Colonel
See, Cool Hand, this is why you make me sick. You just spout crap as tho you know # and you don't. I din't even know why I'm talking to you.

I take it you failed to go ahead and do any research on the topic. Your loss.

The war on Iraq has increased the danger of terrorism. In his book, he writes that shifting from al Qaeda to Iraq "launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide."14

Then why have we not seen a major increase in terrorist attacks? If we caused all of this unrest in the terrorist movement then why the hell aren't they launching almost daily attacks on our civilians?
Why aren't there more instances of domestic terrorism?

Why? Because they have finally realized that we are no longer going to stand by and take it. We have prove that we are willing to use whatever methods are necessary to contain and then eliminate the problem.

Umm...Was it not Clinton who turned down Bin Laden? Wasn't he like handed to us on a silver platter? I seem to remember something along those lines. And wasn't Bin Laden involved in something to do with some airplanes, two really tall buildings, and a few thousand people? Didn't Clinton sign a bill that made it all but impossible for the CIA and FBI to share intelligence? Wasn't the attack sucessful because the agencies couldn't share their intelligence? Seems to me like this guy owes somebody an apology.

I don't see how you could possibly believe that Clinton was all good and never hurt anyone.

Originally posted by Variable
Well it is hard to know what the truth is when you read a little bit about Clarke. It sure looks like a hatchet job on Bush coming from a guy who got passed over for promotion. Who also seems to be pretty partisan. What the guy said is public record. He is quoted in a lot of ways saying some stuff that makes him look like an moron. You would think if all this stuff Clarke says is true Powell would say something. Most people believe he is pretty honest and a straight shooter. Lets also remember that much of these things that happen in the white house are taped and recorded. If all of what he says is true it will come out. Will you anti Bush bashers repent if Clarke is full of it? Probably not. We all want the truth, but in a free society we can speak out and say whatever crap people want to hear, especially if we want them to buy our book...

V

I don't want to judge if the guy is saying the truth or not but, what you are implying is that maybe, this guy who had such an important position for so many years, is a complete liar... Can you imagine that this guy was in a way part of the control or your country?? I guess you could count with one hand how many people aren't liar in the US governement... Bush is the one we see lying for all the others behind him, telling him what to say. What will have to happen for the world to get back on track with leaders you can trust... I really dunno... It's sad to say but, a big event will have to happen to change how things are going on this planet!! A world war? A big cataclysm? A meeting with ET? The discovery of an infinite source of energy which will leak to the public so that everybody can use it (I suspect this kind of energy might already exist in the form of void energy but, some people don't want us to know that).

Anyway, good luck to all of us...The next years won't be easy...

Originally posted by joehayner
Umm...Was it not Clinton who turned down Bin Laden? Wasn't he like handed to us on a silver platter? I seem to remember something along those lines. And wasn't Bin Laden involved in something to do with some airplanes, two really tall buildings, and a few thousand people? Didn't Clinton sign a bill that made it all but impossible for the CIA and FBI to share intelligence? Wasn't the attack sucessful because the agencies couldn't share their intelligence? Seems to me like this guy owes somebody an apology.

I don't see how you could possibly believe that Clinton was all good and never hurt anyone.

WHy is it always Clinton! Clinton has been gone for 4 years! GET OVER IT! TAKE SOME DAMN RESPONSIBILITY!

Originally posted by Colonel
Ok, everyone else is lying but Bush. Even tho the world considers him a first class liar on everything, they are being deceived because these books are put out by Viacom, Simon&Schuster, and whoever.

You belong in a cult cause you act like you're in one.

Hehe...remember that woman in Canada who called Bush a moron? I guess she is the person with the most guts in the world for saying out loud what so many people think. Sadly, she lost her job for being so honest...

Clinton and Bush can both go suck an egg.

Originally posted by riouxda

Hehe...remember that woman in Canada who called Bush a moron? I guess she is the person with the most guts in the world for saying out loud what so many people think. Sadly, she lost her job for being so honest...

This is a perfect example of fascism.